Komentarz do Szabbat 13:13

רבי אליעזר אומר האורג שלשה חוטין בתחלה – if this is the beginning of his weaving of a clothing, he is not liable [for violating the Sabbath] until he weaves three threads, but if he adds on to something woven, its measure of one combines with the rest, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

Introduction This chapter deals with the work involved in making clothes. Today’s mishnah deals with the prohibited labor of weaving.

Rabbi Eliezer says: he who weaves three threads at the beginning or one [thread] added to woven stuff is liable; But the sages say: whether at the beginning or at the end, the standard [for liability] is two threads. According to Rabbi Eliezer, there are two different standards for how much weaving causes one to be liable, depending on when the weaving is performed. When beginning to weave cloth, one is liable only if she weaves three threads. This is because without three threads the cloth has not really been begun. However, if she weaves part of something that has already been started, she is liable even for one thread. Even one thread contributes to an already-started cloth. The sages, whose opinion was already stated in 7:2, provide one standard measure, no matter when the weaving was done. Liability is always for two threads, no matter at the beginning or in the middle.

שתי בתי נירין – that he put two threads of warp (i.e., longitudinal direction) in the cross beam of the loom which we call “Leitschish.”

Introduction The first part of the mishnah explains the prohibited labor of “making two loops.” The second part deals with sewing.

בנירין – it is explained in the Gemara (Tractate Shabbat 105a) that he extends two times [every] thread of warp in the cross-beam and a third time, he extends on the thread that is joined on to the branch of the reed.

He who makes two loops, on either the cross-pieces [nirim] or one the slips [keros], or in a sifter, sieve, or basket, is liable. We need not fully understand how the ancient loom worked to understand that making two loops, no matter where or how they are done, is considered labor prohibited by the Torah. One is also liable if she makes two loops while weaving a sifter (for sifting flour), a sieve (for separating kernels of grain) or a basket.

בקירוס – a curtain that is woven from the fibrous substance/bast of the palm-tree.

And he who sews two stitches, and he who tears in order to sew two stitches [is liable]. In order to be liable for sewing one needs to sew two stitches. Tearing makes one liable only if the tearing was done with a constructive purpose in mind. If one tears in order to sew up the garment, then one is liable. If the purpose is only destructive, there is no liability.

הקורע על מתו – for a dead person for whom he is not required to tear clothing [when hearing of his passing] for he is ruining it and is exempt [from a sin-offering], but for a dead person for whom he is obligated to tear clothing and he repairs it/reconstructs it, he is liable [for a sin-offering].

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah where we learned that one is liable for tearing only if she tears in order to sew two stitches.

ובחמתו כל המקלקלים פטורין – but our Mishnah is superseded and the Halakha is that a person who rends [his garment] in his anger is liable [for a sin-offering] even though he ruins it, regarding the clothing, he repairs it, regarding his inclination, and his mind is at rest for him through this.

He who tears in his anger or [in mourning] for his dead, and all who damage are exempt. According to this mishnah, one who tears his clothes in anger or as a sign of mourning over the dead is not liable, for there is no constructive purpose to such tearing. However, the Talmud notes that when one is liable for rending one’s clothes as a sign of mourning for one’s dead, for instance over a close relative (parent, sibling, child or spouse), then there is constructive purpose to such tearing it fulfills the commandment to tear. Therefore, when a person is obligated to tear and she tears on Shabbat, she is liable. However, if one is exempt from tearing and nevertheless does so, she is exempt. There is also an interesting note on tearing in anger. According to the Rambam, despite what the mishnah says, one is usually liable for tearing in anger because by such tearing one cools down. Again, this makes the tearing constructive and therefore carries with it liability. However, other commentators argue with the Rambam and say, based on a passage in the Talmud, that destroying things out of anger is akin to idol worship, because both are submissions to one’s evil inclination. If a person’s evil inclination dictates that they destroy something, and they submit, they have begun down a slippery slope which will eventually lead to total demise which is symbolized in the Talmud by idol worship. Since such tearing is ultimately not productive, there is no incurred liability. Similarly, any forbidden labor which is performed with only destructive intentions, does not cause one to be liable.

But he who damages in order to repair, his measure [for liability] is as for repairing. As noted, a person is liable for destructive acts only if such acts are performed with constructive intent. If they are performed with such intent, then the measure for liability is the same as the measure for the positive act. For instance, one is liable for erasing only if it is with the intent of writing. Since to be liable for writing one must write two letters, so too with erasing she must erase two letters in order to be liable.

המלבן – [he bleaches] the wool and hatchels/beats it, and/or dyes it and/or spins it – for all of them are primary categories of [forbidden] labor [on the Sabbath]; their required quantity is in order that he spin from that wool a thread whose length is as far as the width of double size of a "סיט" (between the tip of the thumb and that of the index finger when held apart OR between thee root of the thumb and the tip of the index finger, when the former is leaning against the latter – see Talmud Shabbat 106a). And the "סיט" is according to the interruption that exists between the thumb to the finger – all that a person is able to widen it – and the measurement of this width is doubled – this is the double "סיט" -and the width between the thumb and the finger once – is also as far as the distance of a double "סיט" because it has double like that which is between the thumb and the [index] finger.

Introduction This mishnah deals with minimum measures in processing wool and flax.

האורג שני חוטין – their measure/quantity is the width of the clothing as far as the "סיט" for even though he had not woven over the face of the entire width of the clothing, he is liable [for a sin-offering].

The minimum measure for bleaching, hackling, dyeing or spinning is a full double sit. These are all forbidden labors mentioned above in 7:2. The minimum measure for which one incurs liability is double a “sit” the length between one’s thumb and finger, as far as they can be spread.

And he who weaves two threads together, the minimum meausure is a full sit. If one weaves two threads together on a loom, the minimum measure for liability is half of that above, meaning one “sit”.

הצד צפור – until he brought It into the turret/tower (i.e., trap) of wood “Armariav” in the foreign language, he is liable for this is hunting, but if he brought it into the house, it is not hunted through this.

Rabbi Judah says: he who hunts a bird into a tower trap, or a deer into a house, is liable;
But the sages say: [he who hunts] a bird into a tower trap, and a deer into a house, courtyard or corral.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: not all corrals are the same.
This is the general principle: if it lacks further work of hunting, he is exempt. If it does not lack further work of hunting, he is liable.
This mishnah deals with hunting. We should note that hunting is not exactly what we think of it today going out and killing an animal. Hunting refers to trapping an animal such that it remains alive. Killing an animal is a different, yet still prohibited labor.
Section one: According to Rabbi Judah, once one traps a bird in a tower trap, which was a box in the shape of a tower, she has sufficiently trapped the animal such that she is liable for hunting. Similarly, if she traps a deer in a house she is liable. However, if she traps a bird in a house she is exempt because it will still require further trapping in order to get the bird. Furthermore, the bird can escape the house and therefore, the bird is not really trapped. Also, if the deer is trapped into a larger space, then she is not liable.
Section two: The sages agree with Rabbi Judah with regard to the bird but disagree with him with regard to the trapping of the deer. Even if she traps the deer into a courtyard or corral she is still liable.
Section three: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel notes that liability depends on the size of the corral into which the deer has been trapped. We can’t just state unequivocally that trapping into all corrals makes one liable. If catching the deer requires no further worth of hunting (meaning it can be caught easily) than it has already been hunted and she is liable. However, if catching the deer will require further work, then the one who catches it in the corral is not liable.
It is interesting to note that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that not all corrals are the same. It may be that in contrast, most houses and courtyards were the same, meaning they were similarly built and of similar size.

But a deer is hunted when from he brought it into the house and locked the door before it, but not if he brought it into a garden or courtyard – as this is not hunting.

ולביברין - an enclosed space [usually outside of a settlement] surrounded by a wall when we bring into it wildlife and they are guarded there.

כל המחוסר צידה – that it is difficult to capture it there, such as the case where it does not approach him with one bending when he bends to catch it, but the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel [who explains] the matter of the Rabbis.

צבי שנכנס – [a deer who enters] on its own into the house and someone locks [the door] before him, that is his “hunting.”

Introduction This mishnah is similar to 10:5 above, where we learned that if two people jointly perform a labor that could have been performed by one person, they are exempt. If they jointly perform a work that required two people, the sages say that both are liable and Rabbi Shimon exempts them both.

נעלו שנים פטורים - because two have done it (i.e., neither of them completed the act on his own).

If a deer enters a house and one person shuts [the door] before it, he is liable. By closing the door, she is liable, even though she didn’t actually cause the deer to come into the house.

לא יכול אחד לנעול – it is the manner to lock it in with two [people], each of them has [performed] a [forbidden] labor that without him [doing so], it would not have been accomplished.

If two shut it, they are exempt. If one could not shut it, and both shut it, they are liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts them. If two shut the door, both are exempt because they have both performed only half a labor. However, if the door was so large (or the people so small!) that they could only close it together, they are both liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts them, because he holds that two people can never be liable for one jointly performed labor.

ור"ש פוטר – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

השני חייב – for he (i.e., the second person) hunted it (i.e., the animal).

Introduction The final mishnah of this chapter continues to deal with hunting (trapping).

הא למה זה דומה – after it was hunted by the first [person], to locking [the door of] the house to guard it, and not to hunt [it].

If one sat down in the doorway but did not fill it, and a second sat down and filled it, the second is liable. If there is a deer in the house and a person sits down and with her body closes the opening of the house, she is liable for hunting. If she doesn’t fill the opening with her body, and a second person comes and fills the opening, the second person has closed the house and has thereby trapped the deer. Therefore, the second person is liable and the first person is exempt.

If the first sat down in the doorway and fills it, and a second came and sat down at his side, even if the first [then] rises and goes away, the first is liable and the second is exempt. To what is this similar? To one who shuts his house to guard it, and a deer is found to be guarded in it. Once the first person sits in the doorway and thereby traps the deer, the first person is liable. What the second person does is really irrelevant, because the first person has already trapped the animal. Even if the first person gets up and leaves, and the second person is now keeping the animal in the house, the second person is not liable because she did not perform the labor herself. The mishnah compares this to a case where a person closes her door to guard it from thieves and then finds that a deer is trapped inside. There is nothing wrong in such a situation with keeping an already trapped deer inside the house.

ונמצא צבי – hat was already hunted being guarded inside it, such is this, that even though the first person stood up, this is not other than as a guard of the deer that he had from yesterday and the second [person] is exempt [from liability for a sin-offering] as is stated in our Mishnah that he is exempt and permitted.